Sue Chrysanthou,SC,told the Federal Court in Sydney that Nine’s reporting was not a true representation of her client’s practice as it “only put one side of the coin”.
Barrister Sue Chrysanthou,SC,(left) surgeon Munjed Al Muderis and his partner,Claudia Roberts,in September 2023.Dion Georgopoulos
“You’re misrepresenting his practice,” Chrysanthou said on Wednesday during closing submissions in the marathon defamation case. “Individual experiences cannot prove the general unless it’s established that they’re a random selection … or there’s an overwhelming number.”
Al Muderis is suingThe Age,The Sydney Morning Herald and60 Minutes over reports published and broadcast in September 2022.
He alleges the reports convey a range of defamatory meanings,including that he negligently performed osseointegration surgery and provided inadequate aftercare. Osseointegration surgery involves inserting titanium pins into the residual bone of an amputated limb to enable a prosthetic to be connected.
Nine,owner of the media outlets being sued,is seeking to rely on truth,honest opinion and public interest in its defence.
Chrysanthou told the court that Al Muderis had been upfront about the “shocking complications that have occurred after or as part of” surgery and had utterly disproved the “notion of concealment or downplaying risks and upselling the benefits”.
“He is so blunt,” Chrysanthou said.
She described Nine’s allegation that Al Muderis had failed to care for patients after surgery as hurtful,awful and unproven.
“It’s such an awful allegation that’s wholly unproven,that he dumps these people,” Chrysanthou said.
She also attacked the credibility ofAgeinvestigative reporter Charlotte Grieve and urged the court to make a finding against her.
Investigative journalist Charlotte Grieve (left) outside the Federal Court.Dion Georgopoulos
During the trial,Grieve has defended the depth and fairness of her reporting,saying the coverage was in the public interest and the articles made it “abundantly clear” that not all patients were unhappy after their treatment.
“It was looking into what happens when this surgery goes wrong … are these complications normal? What is this surgery and ... how is it marketed?” Grieve told the court. “I believe we did summarise the benefits of osseointegration,and we went to great lengths to acknowledge that your client has done incredible things for many people.”
During his closing address on Tuesday,Nine lawyer Dr Matt Collins,KC,said Al Muderis was undeserving of his unblemished reputation,following “glaring examples,in our submission,of negligence in surgery,in each case,with catastrophic results”.
“Now,the case studies in relation to negligence in surgery are particularly significant in our submission because at the core of a surgeon’s right to a good reputation is the performance of surgery to a competent standard,” he said.
On Monday,Collins told the court that Al Muderis was and appeared to be “incapable of admitting errors”.
Collins also said nothing of substance had emerged during the 15-week defamation case to “shake the fundamental accuracy” of Nine’s reporting.
“What the evidence established was discreditable conduct by him before surgery,during surgery,after surgery,” Collins said. “Dr Al Muderis,in our submission,is a very unsatisfactory witness.”
The trial has run for 15 weeks. Al Muderis’ lawyers will continue their closing submission on Thursday.
With Melissa Cunningham
Get the day’s breaking news,entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy.